12 pinklight,

You said:

1 Co 11 says that woman is the glory of man but it does not (no way) say that she is the image of man or even made in the image of man.

Also I see a difference in ‘being made in the image of God (humanity – Genesis) from ‘being the image of God (aner – 1 Co 11).

You are right in that it doesn’t directly say that the woman is made in the image of man. However it does say that she is the glory of the man. What does this mean? How come scripture never says that the man is the glory of the woman? Next question, if the woman is made from a part of the man, could this be thought to be made from his image?

Man is said to be the glory of God. As the glory of God, does this mean that he was made in God’s image? If so, does this mean glory = image of ____ ?

Thoughts?

Don,

Mar 10:6 But from the beginning of creation, ‘God made them male and female.’

We know that this was not on day 1, 2, 3, 4, or 5 in the creation account of Gen 1.

Could you please write this statement how God could have written it if the man and the woman were created as male and female? How could he have written it so that we understood that?

Paula,

I am going back to the comments from #10 as I took a break for a few days to deal with other matters.

I am glad that you agree with me that the passage is literal. I asked you “what was Adam in the creation male or female or both” and you answered “or neither”. If your answer is neither, then God created a human without gender.

Timing is the key here. The statement “male and female he created them” is in the first, less detailed overview of creation week. Chapter two goes into detail absent from chapter one. After Eve, we have no doubt that Adam was male and Eve female. Before that, we just don’t know. The important thing of course is that Eve and Adam were made of the same flesh and bone, making them absolutely equal.

Yet Jesus told us that God made them male and female “from the beginning” so we cannot say that we don’t know what there was before Eve was created.

Matthew 19:4 And He answered and said, “Have you not read that He who created them from the beginning MADE THEM MALE AND FEMALE,

Jesus didn’t say that “from the beginning” man was an ungendered person AND female. He said that “from the beginning” he made them male and female.

If God created Adam as a male-female, then we can help God out by putting that into the text. Otherwise it appears God made a mistake. Adam wasn’t exclusively male so then God didn’t create the male, he became male by default. Had God taken out the male part, he would have been female?

We don’t have to help God out at all. Jesus said they were male and female “in the beginning” and he didn’t make a mistake since he was there “in the beginning”. The scripture does not contradict Jesus by telling us that Adam wasn’t exclusively male. Neither does Jesus say that “after the split” there was male and female. He said “in the beginning” and I believe him.

There’s a lot God left out of the text, on a gazillion topics. I mean, come on… “there was light”. Little help, eh?

I agree that there is a lot left out, but what is there is enough and what is there by the testimony of two of three witnesses will not contradict what we think God meant. If God didn’t say that ungendered was there “in the beginning”, and he said “male and female” then we can cross “ungendered” off our list of possibilities. Jesus has never misled us yet and I would rather trust him than the word of any mere man.

And I don’t try to supply what God didn’t say either.

But that is what you appear to be doing. You are saying that Adam was NOT male in the beginning. Please show me a verse that will contradict Jesus’ testimony and then please explain how Jesus was wrong.

If there’s no mention of ribs anywhere else in the Hebrew Bible, then how do you know it means rib and not just “side”? I considered the LXX too. And you still haven’t told me what “flesh” came out of Adam.

Adam’s testimony has not been impeached. He said that what Eve was made from was his flesh and his bone. The only bone in the side of man is rib. In the LXX it renders it as something “angular” and the word “organ” is not in the original. Everything meshes with Adam’s rib. Since there is flesh attached to the rib and God apparently did not scrape the flesh off the rib, it makes perfect sense.

There is also not one reference in the Old Testament to a side chamber inside a person. The only reference is to an “angular” “board” “rib” which shows something hard. If I saw actual evidence there there was a female organ attached to the rib I would consider it. However there is no evidence in the scripture nor from Adam’s testimony. Adam did not say that God took out an organ. He said “flesh” and “bone”. An organ is not usually called “flesh”.

Again, if the word for rib is only found here in Genesis, then nobody can say for sure what it must mean in this context. Side is the meaning in the LXX which predates (AFAIK) any Hebrew text available by several hundred years. It’s at least something to go on. If we say it must mean rib because we think the context supports it, that would be circular reasoning since there is no other context to compare it to.

There is no doubt that the rib was taken from Adam’s side. But to take the location (side) and try to prove that it is an organ just doesn’t make sense to me.

So it wasn’t only a bone after all? Just a little muscle attached to it? Can we arbitrarily decide that’s what “flesh” means here, and not anything else?

It wasn’t just a bone. I never said it was just a rib. The text says it was flesh and bone. Flesh is defined as: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/flesh

the soft substance of a human or other animal body, consisting of muscle and fat or skin.

Again, very consistent with the the rib and the flesh around it and not consistent with an organ.

Cheryl, I’ve been biting my tongue all this time so I wouldn’t accuse you of this, even though I could. Let’s not judge motives now, okay? That’s what male supremacists do to us all the time.

My intention was not to offend you and if I have, I apologize. When I said that there is no evidence for an ungendered human and those who see it that way, it appears to me that they would like to see this in the text, I was not intending to judge anyone’s heart. I was making an observation about the fact that there is no evidence. I have given evidence to the contrary by quoting scripture and I have now buttressed this with Jesus’ words who tells us what there was “in the beginning”. If there is any evidence for the contrary then I want to see it. However without evidence, it appears to me that people who have a good heart and good motives, want to see something in the text that is not there. I also believe that adding in an ungendered human “in the beginning” messes up God’s good intention for the genders. God’s intention was not an after thought because male and female was his purpose “in the beginning”. If I offend someone with these words, I truly do not mean to be offensive. I would like to push you to prove your point from evidence instead of from silence. If the point cannot be proved, I would like to push you to see the beauty of gender right from the beginning. It does not lessen my value because I am female. In fact I believe it gives me more value. I was made with a purpose and I was meant to add value to the man because I am one of those whom the man needs.

And I haven’t seen any witness to say he was a male as we know them. The text just calls the pre-Eve Adam “human”. Only this, and nothing more.

If this is the case then perhaps Adam became nongendered again when he got kicked out of the garden because God did not call him “male” but THE human. When God called Adam “THE human” and kicked him out does this prove that Adam was non-gendered? If not, then how could it prove that he was non-gendered in the beginning?

I really think that these are valid points because honestly this belief makes me feel somewhat embarrassed. I know that complementarians make fun of those egalitarians that believe that Adam was non-gendered or male/female gendered in the beginning. I think that they have a point. There is no evidence for this in the text and they see those who believe this way as trying to make us all non-gendered now. I know that this is not the case but their concern that if one can read into the text about a non-gendered human in the beginning, what else do we read into the text? I do not want to be accused of this because I value evidence that has two or three witnesses so that I can be sure of what I believe.

I don’t argue that the part taken from Adam was necessarily a “female part”. It was an Adam part. Maybe it was something we associate now with the exclusively female now, maybe not.

I agree that it was an “Adam” part. It was his own flesh and bone and not hers in the beginning. But it makes no sense at all to say that what was taken out was not necessarily a “female part” but could be now exclusively female. What on earth is a female part now that wasn’t female before? This just appears to be stretching things farther and farther into speculation and conjecture and farther away from the actual text especially since we have a solid word from Adam about what was taken out.

Are you saying I’m embracing a Greek myth, just because I won’t close a door I don’t see closed in scripture?

No, I don’t think you are necessarily embracing a Greek myth. What I am saying is that the only backup we have is from mythology. Even the Jews had a great amount of mythology including the addition of a “first wife” to Adam. According to their myth, Lileth was the one created equal to Adam, but Adam needed another wife created from his side to be in submission to him because the first one who was equal wouldn’t submit to him.

You can read about Lileth here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lilith#Folk_tradition

The idea that Adam had a wife prior to Eve may have developed from an interpretation of the Book of Genesis and its dual creation accounts; while Genesis 2:22 describes God’s creation of Eve from Adam’s rib, an earlier passage, 1:27, already indicates that a woman had been made: “So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.” The text places Lilith’s creation after God’s words in Genesis 2:18 that “it is not good for man to be alone”. He forms Lilith out of the clay from which he made Adam, but the two bicker. Lilith claims that since she and Adam were created in the same way, they were equal, and she refuses to submit to him:

I am fully honored to have such intellects who come here and who are so far above me that I look like a country hill-billy. There is no doubt at all in my mind that you are way smarter than I am. But even with your intelligence, there may be something that I can challenge you on and help you to unlearn. If I am right, then the challenge is a good thing and it is godly. If I am wrong, then I submit to learn from real evidence. In your evidence to me you will have to deal with Jesus’ words that “in the beginning” God created them male and female and you need to teach me why I should see Jesus’ words differently. I do not want to be misled by mythology or anything of my own flesh that would like to make myself created for a different purpose than I have been created. I am happy and content to be what God created me to be and I am happy and content to believe God. If I can be persuaded by God’s word that there is another option and the persuasion comes from clear texts that show that from the beginning they were not gendered, at least there was one ungendered human, then I am happy to admit that I may stand to be corrected. Until then I would like to encourage everyone to study hard. Study to show yourself approved unto God a workman that needeth not to be ashamed. Don’t look at scriptures through your emotions. Test all things and hold fast to what is good.

It will take me awhile to answer the rest of the comments as this is a very busy week for me, but I do intend to work my way through them all. If a biblical proof for an ungendered human “in the beginning” pops up in the text and anyone has the ability to correct me on this one, feel free to proof text away. In the meantime I stand firm that Jesus and Genesis are correct as gendered humans (male and female) were “in the beginning” and the other view is only supported in the myths.

Happy Promise Keeper,

Your judgment call is very unkind. These are the words of someone who is not offering refreshing water, but bitter water.

The answer is in Jesus not in patriarchy. Those who are strong will follow him and him alone. This is what is taught here. The doctrine of Jesus and the freedom he gives instead of the doctrines of men.

Perhaps you can have a look around the blog and read a little more than just one post.

pinklight,

I need some clarification here. I read that he made ‘adam’ (humankind’ in his image, and them (a reference to adam) male and female, therefore male and female were not made in his image – their gender was not, but only their humanity.

While God says that he made mankind in his image, he specifically goes on to say that it is male and female that he made in his image. It is not the sexual parts of male and female that were made in God’s image. However both male and female were made in their humanity and in their spiritual nature, in the image of God.

I am so grateful to God that he specifically said that male and female were made in his image because I am certain that if he had not been specific that men would have denied that we were direct image of God. Oh, wait….so many do deny that women are in the direct image of God! But so many more would deny it if it was not clearly stated.

Okay, I will take time also for pinklight tonight.

‘When God first created Adam, he created man in His image and then God created the woman in both the image of God and the image of man.’

This is 1 Corinthians 11. The woman is the glory of God AND the glory of man. The woman is in the image of God AND in the image of man. The woman is the only one with two glories and two images. And…she is the only one that has two heads. While scripture says that the husband is her head, scripture also says that if she is a Christian that Christ as head of the church is her head.

It is difficult to understand some passages without also understanding that Paul never denies that the woman was made in God’s image even though he highlights in 1 Cor. 11 that the woman is the image of the man. See my post called Paul refutes a faulty tradition here

Don,

I probably won’t have much more time tonight to respond so I do want to get in an answer to you before I finish other import things on my agenda.

Part of the challenge is that translations and commentary use the term man in 2 senses, inclusive for humans and exclusive for males.

I think the big part of my argument is that God said he created male and female. This is the original creation and gendered “male” means male sexual organs. I don’t see any place in the scripture where it says that God created a couple of male additions to Adam after Eve was created.

Also it seems meaningless for Adam to look at the male and female animals in order to find a mate. What would he need a mate for if he was neither male or female? Which animal would he related himself to – the males or the females? When Eve was created, I don’t think he had to look her over too much to know that she was the opposite gender than he was. I don’t think he woke up from his surgery and had to inspect himself to see what extra things God gave him beyond what he took out.

Gender is a type of human, however if there is no gender, there is just human.

What would make us think there was no gender? When Adam was naming the animals and studying them seeing male and female how could he see that he was missing anything when he couldn’t identify with either male or female? When you match up the “no gender” to each part of the story it appears like a puzzle piece that doesn’t fit. How on earth can one explain that Adam was the only one missing a mate if he wasn’t a male? If he did have male parts, he could see all the other male parts matching up to the female parts and this would cause him to realize he didn’t have a fitting body part. But without the male attachments – it wouldn’t make sense.

I do not say that there was female as a part of Adam before the split, the side was formed into a female after the split.

So Eve became female after the split? Okay. That part makes perfect sense and fits with what I am saying. But when did Adam become male? Which verse tells us this and if he didn’t become male until after Eve was created, then how come God said that they were created male and female. It would make more sense if God say, they evolved into male and female. But then I don’t believe in evolution. Do you?

But there was no concept of a male or female human before the split, it is not that Adam was both sexes, Adam was non-gendered, there being only 1 human.

One is male when they have male body parts even if they don’t recognize that they are male. I don’t understand how you can emasculate Adam just because there wasn’t another human being around for awhile. Either Adam had male parts or he didn’t. If he didn’t have these parts, when did he get them?

The terms male and female are only used after the split, that is my point, and trying to have those terms apply before that is not warranted by Scripture, it simply does not say that.

Then you will have to explain why God said that he created them male and female. If it wasn’t at the creation then why didn’t God tell us the truth about when Adam became male? Is it okay if I am just a simple person and believe God for what he said?

One might think that if one thinks all creation is instantaneous, but that is not true, some things are said in the Bible to be created by God but the creation takes place over time.

I don’t think that creation is instantaneous although God could have done it that way if he wanted to. I believe that God took 6 days to complete creation, because I am just a simple person who accepts the text the way it is written. If I had to read into the text and figure out what God actually meant when he said something completely opposite of what he meant, I would go stir crazy because I am not smart enough to know what God meant if he didn’t say it in the text.

Paula,

Thanks for your consideration. It has been a stressful week for sure! This is a great discussion.

1a – I don’t agree that Adam’s words contradict the idea of Eve being made from a “female” organ taken from Adam. After all, she wasn’t made from only bone, but also from flesh.

So do you agree with me then that the words are not poetic but literal?

1b – It is not logically required for Adam to say “this is her flesh taken from me” in order for the part taken to be “female”. It started out as his part; there was no her until she was made. All the parts were his to begin with, whether they performed a “male” or “female” function.

So then if the organ was a “female” organ and it belonged to Adam, what was Adam in the creation male or female or both?

1c – Similar point here to 1b. And the text never says Adam was created male. He did not have to become male when the parts were removed from him to form Eve; he was simply missing some parts. And his post-sleep body was then exclusively male, while Eve’s was exclusively female.

Okay, but since God said that he created male and female and I think we can agree the Eve was female, what was Adam? Creation means creation for Adam. God created male and female.

If God created Adam as a male-female, then we can help God out by putting that into the text. Otherwise it appears God made a mistake. Adam wasn’t exclusively male so then God didn’t create the male, he became male by default. Had God taken out the male part, he would have been female?

2a – Again, the text never says Adam was exclusively male before Eve was created.

There isn’t any other kind of creation but male and female. If Adam wasn’t exclusively male, then God would have told us. It would have been quite easy to fix. i.e. in the original creative work of God was a unisex human and a female. Removing the female left the male. Done. Unfortunately we have to read into the account to get this out. I prefer to just take what God said.

2b – Gen. 2:23 actually argues against your position. Adam said Eve was “taken out of man”, therefore the part was (1) originally part of Adam, and (2) taken out of him and formed into Eve. Yes, they were his parts to begin with; taking them out didn’t make them any less his parts. This preserves the unity and equality of both of them, without requiring that the parts taken from Adam had to be “male”.

Gen. 2:23 doesn’t argue against my position at all. Adam’s rib belonged to his body. It was taken out of him and formed into a woman. She then became a woman but from his flesh and his bone. This preserves the unity and equality of both and ribs aren’t
“male”. It wasn’t a “male” part that was taken out. It was a “part” of a male.

3 – Agree that context rules, but the Hebrew word is still not the one used for “rib”. To say it must mean “rib” anyway is to ignore the normal meaning of the word and make up a new one, while also ignoring the “flesh” part. What “flesh” is included in “bone”? Why ignore the “flesh” factor?

I don’t know how you can say that the Hebrew word is not the one used for “rib” since other than these verses in Genesis, the word rib doesn’t appear in the Hebrew bible. I am saying that it must mean rib because there is no other bone in one’s side. Can you point to another bone?

Well, I normally don’t have people telling me that I am making up a meaning for a biblical word, but I am happy to prove that I am not. The Brown-Drive-Briggs definition is as follows:

BDB Definition:
1) side, rib, beam
1a) rib (of man)
1b) rib (of hill, ridge, etc)
1c) side-chambers or cells (of temple structure)
1d) rib, plank, board (of cedar or fir)
1e) leaves (of door)
1f) side (of ark)

As far as how much flesh went along with the rib, I don’t know, but for sure some was on the rib. I enjoy ribs once in awhile and the ribs I eat are not just bone. They all have some tasty flesh with them.

4 – Again, there is no logical necessity for making the parts taken from Adam exclusively “male” in order for Eve to be his flesh and bones.

I am not claiming that the bones are “male”. I am claiming that they are Adam’s bones not bones belonging to anyone else including Eve.

Conclusion: You may be right– or maybe not. But the argument that Adam could have had both “male” and “female” parts originally cannot be labeled myth, because the text does not rule it out, explicitly or implicitly or logically.

The text does rule it out. God’s creation is specific. It isn’t human and human. It is male and female. There is no third fill in the blank.

It is simply a valid difference of opinion, one we will have to wait for heaven to answer.

It appears to me that those who see another option have something that they would like to see in the text. Are there any complementarians who can read Genesis and see a androgynous being created first especially since God specially said he created (and the word here is not created so cannot be confused with what would happen after the fact) male & female? If there are any complementarians who see this I would be very interested to dialog with them.

I cannot be dogmatic about that on which scripture is silent, and I won’t call other views myths.

I wouldn’t be dogmatic either if scripture was silent on Adam’s sex. Fact is that scripture isn’t silent so I should be okay 🙂

The issue here is not whether the Word of God can correct anyone, but what inferences can be made from the text by fallible people.

I think that inference can be made if there is two or three witnesses. I haven’t seen any witness either in Genesis or anywhere else that would imply in any way that Adam was not a regular male (with all his ducks in order) at his creation.

There are many other such issues on which strong, Bible-honoring believers disagree, as you know. I believe this is one of them, and that there is room for both views on this matter.

I do not think that this issue will be a dividing point in fellowship nor will it send someone to hell. However I strongly believe that making Eve come from a female part inside Adam that clearly doesn’t belong to a male, clouds the importance of Eve’s direct connection with Adam. If a female part is Eve before she was divided from Adam, then Eve didn’t really come from Adam but from her own part in a two person shared body. Or perhaps she was like a tumour or a misformed twin. I don’t see any evidence for such a doctrine in scripture and I do see evidence of it in pagan philosophy. That is a huge red flag in spite in addition to the silence of scripture.

It is simply a valid difference of opinion, one we will have to wait for heaven to answer. I cannot be dogmatic about that on which scripture is silent, and I won’t call other views myths. The issue here is not whether the Word of God can correct anyone, but what inferences can be made from the text by fallible people. There are many other such issues on which strong, Bible-honoring believers disagree, as you know. I believe this is one of them, and that there is room for both views on this matter.

At any rate, I think we can produce arguments from Genesis till the cows come home and it won’t budge those who insist upon male privilege.

You bet. I just don’t want them to reject me because they see me embracing a Greek mythology. I don’t see that as helpful or needed.

I still await the male supremacist answer to the question of pride in the flesh: how can male supremacy be compatible with “not so among you” and all the “one anothers” of scripture? How can any believer even wish to lord over another? Until and unless they answer those questions from clear scriptural teachings, everything else is going to be endless mud wrestling.

That may be. I do not mind getting dirty, though, if I can influence one person to rethink. I am one person that will never accept egalitarian doctrine if I can see it conflicts with the scriptures. My interest is not to prove a point from the scripture but to work hard to mine out what it says beyond what my prejudice tells me. If it can be proven that I am wrong, I will gladly change.

I dunno, maybe we should scrape up some cash and offer a reward to the first male supremacist to explain away the most basic quality of the believer being to serve and be humble as Jesus gave the example. 😉

The humility is a big thing. I have met so many that are arrogant and rude they pride themselves in being privileged as a male. The ones who are humble and willing to be gentle and give an answer without the arrogance are very precious to me even if we disagree. I have acquired a couple of complementarian friends because of my ministry work. I never thought I would have a comp give me the time of day. All of the ones I met before were rude and arrogant. But the couple that I have met over the last few months are men well known in ministry who actually value what I have to say. Maybe miracles do happen even in the comp world!

Thanks for jousting with me, Paula. These issues can be very important to many people reading my blog and it was my desire to give a thorough answer.

I would also like anyone who may have believed that Adam was part female and has since changed their mind to consider commenting here. There may be more angles that I have missed and I appreciate hearing anyone’s thoughts.

These are issues where we can debate and disagree on and even agree to disagree, but we can do it agreeably with great love and appreciation for each other. I have learned a lot from you Paula that has been a tremendous help to me. I very much value the interaction.

Okay, next post is now up at http://strivetoenter.com/wim/2009/02/02/adam-and-his-ms-organ/

I think I have been thorough. Please let me know on the comments on that post if I missed anything.

We should probably leave most of this until my next post when I will focus on this issue. However your analogies do not fit.

When a human takes clay and forms a pot, they can certain squish the pot together and instead of one large pot they can make two smaller ones. But this is not the way God did it.

A human can take some clay and make a pot and then choose to remove part of the inner lining of the pot and close up the hole. Then a human can take the part that they took out of pot one and add more clay to that piece and make a new pot.

However there are problems with this analogy. When a person removes part from the first pot, it doesn’t make the pot something that it wasn’t already in the beginning. It is still that same pot with a missing piece.

Adam was created male because God only created male and female. God did not “reform” Adam as male.

I will try to get the next post done soon so that we can carry on our discussion there, okay?

“closed up the flesh underneath” is reforming what was left.

“Reforming” is forming again. I cannot see how it could possibly apply to sewing up the flesh after an operation.

Are you possibly alluding to the thought that Adam only became male after the “part” was taken out? Did God add testosterone after the “part” was taken out? If not, then how could we understand that Adam was just as male as he was before the “part” was taken out?

Well forming doesn’t mean that it isn’t creation because in chapter 1 God said that he created male and female so female was “created”. Where does it say that pot 1 was remade?

Paula,

I understand what you mean about speculation. God certainly didn’t tell us that man was man/woman before the fall. The problem comes if we want to see that man was split. If he was “split” and if this is indeed true, then logic comes into play because a splitting is not a creation but splitting between what is already there.

More later.

Well, if I believed as you do, then I would say that logically there must be a minimum of man & woman before the split because you can’t get something out of a split that didn’t exist before the split. Make sense? Or we could say that if God didn’t tell us what there was before the split, then maybe there wasn’t a split but the creation of a female that didn’t exist before her creation.

Hillary,

I am so thrilled that you have stopped by and I hope you find this a warm and accepting community place!

Your point is excellent! I do think that there is a huge difference between authoritative and authoritarianism. I would welcome anyone who has experienced authoritarian-styled leadership who found that abuse did not follow.

Don,
If you split something up and after the split there is a he & a she, what was there before the split?

By the way when I upgraded wordpress and the blog theme I lost all of my buttons on the comment box. Not sure yet how to get them back but will work on it as I have time.

I had planned another issue for the next post, but I think it is very important to answer the questions and comments on this post. I was going to put answers here but not everyone reads the comments on the post. God-willing early this week I will have the time to give my full reasoning from the scriptures in answer to the issue of whether or not Adam was created as a male-female and was split by God in the creation of Eve. That issue will be next on my agenda.

Don and Paula,

I have lots more to say but it is late this evening. I will have to get to my response another day. Thanks as always for participating as being stretched by the scriptures is a valuable exercise.

Kathleen,

I am SO glad that I and the people on this community place (blog) have been helpful to you!! The very best reward of service is to know that I have been of service.

I can relate to your story and the stress that you have felt. I too have been in a place of stress that has affected my body. I welcome you here and hope that we can be a valuable resource to you and that we can continue to encourage and lift you up as you find opportunity for your gifts that the Lord Jesus has given you.

A big hug for that compelling story!

Lin,

Where does this teaching put a man in relation to his wife in the NC?

This is a great question. In my next post I will address this very important issue.

Yalo,

I’ve always believed that the first three chapters of Genesis are poetry – not in a literal sense, of course, but in the sense of being a beautiful, dramatic account of the Creation.

It is indeed a beautiful, dramatic account of the Creation, but I don’t see any reason not to accept the details given as history. If some facts are true and others are merely poetry and thus not true, then we are having to rely on our own wisdom to separate the truth from the metaphor. The fact is that the biblical writers took the Genesis account as truth and so did Jesus. Jesus quoted from the scripture as if it was historically correct and I don’t think we can go wrong in accepting Jesus’ word as he is the one who was there in the beginning and saw it all.

Don,

You said:

3. The woman is formed from a side of Adam, this is the same term as used for a side of the tabernacle, it does not need to be a tiny rib.

The Hebrew term can also mean the side of the tabernacle. We do know for sure what it means in Genesis because Adam said she was “bone” and “flesh” of his. So what was taken out was bone (side bone is the rib) and flesh attached to that bone. How much flesh, we are not told.

4. The term ish/man is not used for Adam until the word ishah is also used.

Good point. It is also good to remind us that Adam is the name for human. “The Adam” is Adam specifically, but Adam is the name that is generic for either the man or the woman.

The second lack is that the human by itself is not good, which I understand to mean, not functioning (yet) in the way God intends.

I agree with you that man could not “function” the way the animals could with their mates, but I believe that “not good” means more than just function. The reason I believe this is because women bring more to the “table” than just sexuality and child bearing. We bring insight and a relational quality that is generally lacking in males. We think differently and I believe that when we stifle women and hold women back and not allow them to contribute in teaching and training, we lose an important aspect to our ability to “help”. A “helper” is not an underling that only helps as a “go-for” but is an essential partner who brings balance.

The origins stories in Gen 1 are about God separating things, this idea continues in Gen 2 with 2 more separations, but the last 2 also allows joining. When married, the 2 become 1; when dead, the human becomes dirt.

The problem that I have with this statement is that if God is “separating” the two, then Eve must have existed before she was created or else what was separated? Also was their “intimate” relationship with two in one before the separation? If two intimately together is “not good” and must be separated, then what is the purpose for bringing them back together again as a “one-flesh” union.

In my opinion this is reading into the text. If I am wrong, I welcome anyone to correct me. But I want to see if from the text. Where does the text say there are “two” in “one”. Where is the plural in unity and then plural in separation? I don’t see it from the Hebrew.

pinklight,

So women do not have the human right to define themselves since they are under male headship. This is a teaching worse than spiritual slavery.

I find it very odd to see men who think it is up to them to define what “womanhood” is. And this is being done even while most men say they don’t understand women. However now because the male was created first they have the “royal prerogative” to define womanhood and to give women rules in order to stay within the “roles” that men have defined for them? It seems to me that these men have usurped a “role” that doesn’t belong to them. I think this is very unwise.

Lin,

That was a great example of cute kiddie gender quote!

Thanks Lin and Jael! We do think Isaac is very precious.

Good one Ruth, and welcome to my blog!!!

Paula,

Good one about babies and roles. Or, wait, doesn’t it say somewhere in the Christian Talmud that the baby boys’ role is to cry louder and longer??

Very cute, Don.

Here’s another one, this time about God. My grandson asks his mom if God lives in the sky. She answers him about where heaven is. He says “But mom does God live in the sky?” His mom gives him more details about how far away heaven is, etc but this doesn’t satisfy Isaac. Persistently, he asks “BUT MOM, does God live in the SKY?” Seeing that her answers about heaven aren’t satisfying him, she says, yes God lives in the sky. Isaac answers, “I thought so, I think I can see his feet”, as he points to a large cloud.

Jennifer #22, what a wonderful testimony! Thanks so much for encouraging us all. I also received a lot of very helpful thoughts from “Who is your covering?” Very good book.

Don,

I didn’t quite realize you were such a “funk”y guy! That was worth a laugh!

Michael,

You are picking up on a lot of things that aren’t right and are more akin to myths than the truth. Keep up the good work and thanks for sharing your experience with us.

Sometimes we just need to keep reminding ourselves to ask those who have embellished on the scriptures, where they got it from. Where in the scriptures does it say….? I think that so many listen to these well-known teachers and pick up what sounds like a good story and they think it is scriptural. I mean, it has to be scriptural, doesn’t it, if a famous teacher is teaching it? Not!

Michael,

The thought about all of Eve’s requests to Adam (including could she take a potty break) make the whole issue of having Adam to be consulted for her decisions, to be incredibly silly. Instead of a helper, she would see to be a whole lot of work for him. That just isn’t scriptural. Eve was a person who could make decisions on her own and nothing in the scriptures refutes that.